On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:07:08PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> > Yes, "pushbranch" is probably a better name for what I am referring to.
> > I agree that pushremote is probably enough for sane cases. I seem to
> > recall that people advocating the "upstream" push-default thought that
> > branch name mapping was a useful feature, but I might be
> > mis-remembering. I will let those people speak up for the feature if
> > they see fit; it seems somewhat crazy to me.
> I think "branch mapping" you recall are for those who want to push
> their 'topic' to 'review/topic' or something like that.  With Git
> post 7cdebd8a (Merge branch 'jc/push-refmap', 2013-12-27), I think
> "remote.*.push" can be used to implement that, by the way.

Hmm. The top patch of that series still relies on "upstream" being a
push destination, though. So if I have a triangular workflow where I
fork "topic" from "origin/master", my "git push origin topic" will go to
"refs/heads/master" on "origin" under the "upstream" rule. So that seems
broken as ever. :)

But I guess what you are referring to is that in a triangular world, the
second patch lets me do:

  git config push.default current
  git config remote.origin.push 'refs/heads/*:refs/review/*'

And then "git push", "git push origin", or "git push origin topic" all
put it in "review/topic", which is what I want.

I think that is sensible, and only heightens my sense of the "upstream"
push.default as useless. :)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to